This weekend marks the transition between the gratitude of Thanksgiving and the greedy excess of Christmas shopping. What better time to muse on the implications of the Disney trial that is providing holiday entertainment in Delaware Chancery Court.

For those who still equate Disney with childhood mouse-eared innocence, the trial is a revelation of what it is like to reign over the Magic Kingdom. At issue in this shareholders suit is the jaw-dropping $140 million that onetime super-agent Michael Ovitz received as severance when he was sacked in 1996 after 15 tumultuous months as Disney's president, heir apparent to CEO Michael Eisner.

By the standards of corporate America, not to mention Washington, $140 million is chump change. Warner Bros. and its partners squandered an estimated $170 million on this holiday season's ice-ball flop, The Polar Express. But the Disney trial transcends corporate finances as it provides a riveting portrait of the egoism of Ovitz and Eisner. Small wonder The Times of London called it with atypical British overstatement "perhaps the most entertaining corporate trial in American history."

When Ovitz was the dealmaking chief of the talent agency CAA in the early 1990s, he received gushy profiles in glossy magazines like Vanity Fair almost monthly. But a far different picture of Ovitz has emerged in the trial. A former Disney executive described his management style as "odd as opposed to useful." That executive, Stephen Bollenbach, testified about a meeting at which Ovitz made 40 Disney executives vote on "Who's the most important person in history?" Eisner ranked up there with Jesus when the responses were tallied.

Other weird anecdotes have enlivened the trial. At the funeral of Eisner's mother in New York, the CEO recounted that Ovitz made a "giant scene" when the hearse was blocked by Fifth Avenue traffic. And, according to Eisner's testimony, Ovitz insisted on being ferried around by limousine at a corporate retreat while other Disney executives traveled in luxury buses.

Eisner, who after a troubled tenure has announced that he will step down as CEO in 2006, comes across as equally unsympathetic. During the summer of 1996, as Eisner schemed to palm off Ovitz on Sony, he was interviewed by CNN's Larry King. Dismissing rumors of a rift as "baloney," Eisner flatly stated that he would hire Ovitz again without reservation. After that mendacious video clip was replayed in the courtroom, Eisner said ruefully, "It was unfortunate and stupid."

Former Senate majority leader George Mitchell, now the chairman of Disney's board, revealed the casual manner in which Ovitz was hired. Mitchell admitted that the board never questioned claims that Ovitz was making $20 million to $25 million a year at CAA. In fact, Mitchell testified that the only document the board examined was Ovitz's résumé. Needless to say, the credentials of a would-be ticket-taker at Disney World receive greater scrutiny.

It is easy to file these stories away in a mental compartment marked "That's Hollywood." But for all the Tinseltown extravagance of the Ovitz-Eisner saga, the real lessons lie in the arena of corporate governance. At a time when millions of hard-pressed Americans will be visiting food pantries over the holidays and scrounging for hand-me-downs as Christmas presents, it is worth recalling that most corporate titans live in a realm unimaginable to ordinary Americans.

A study by the liberal Economic Policy Institute found that income inequality is rapidly increasing. In 1979, those in the top 1% of American families had incomes 33 times greater than those in the bottom 20%. By 2000, this income differential increased to 88 times. In fact, in 2000, the wealthiest 1% earned a greater share of national income than at any time since the eve of the Depression. Those numbers date to the days when Bill Clinton was president and don't reflect the benefits that the affluent received from George W. Bush's tax cuts.

Business Week, in its annual survey of CEO income released in April, found that pay packages (including salaries, bonuses and long-term compensation) increased by 9% in 2003. That, of course, was far greater than wage increases. The average CEO in the study earned $8.1 million, admittedly a pittance compared with Ovitz's $140 million. The magazine also looked at the 25 CEOs with the highest compensation, who snagged an average of $33 million in 2003. In case you are curious, that works out to more than 900 times the salary of a typical American worker.

Statistics like that are difficult to absorb. It is far easier to chortle over Martha Stewart's jail term and snigger over the Disney corporate drama. But for all the glib talk about CEOs increasing shareholder value, something is awry in a society where the rich are getting richer and everyone else is getting by. This is a problem that does not lend itself to neat political solutions, for all the righteous indignation inspired by rogue companies like Enron.

But for those who are juggling credit cards in an effort to make it through Christmas shopping, it is understandable to be a little envious of Ovitz, no matter how the Disney trial works out. For $140 million, it is surprising how many Americans would agree to never again work at Disney.